Barriers and facilitators to implementing nature prescriptions for child and youth health: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spending time in and connecting with nature has been shown to have positive benefits across multiple health outcomes, including for children and youth. Growing in popularity, nature prescriptions are recommended by health providers, social providers, and educators to spend more time in nature. The health and well-being benefits from nature prescription programs hold great potential for children and youth. However, a key evidence gap remains on how nature prescriptions occur in practice in pediatric healthcare, social care, and education, including barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nature prescription programs. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nature prescription programs for child and youth health. Peer-reviewed, original studies published in English were systematically searched in six databases using search terms focusing on nature prescriptions and child and youth health. Following the recommendations of Arksey and O'Malley (2005), two reviewers independently screened 2111 titles and abstracts, 38 records were screened in full text, and 10 studies were included. Thematic analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke's (2022) guidelines. Three themes were developed from thematic analysis: (i) safety considerations, (ii) materials, resources, and support, and (iii) program features. The results of this review can be used to guide future nature prescription program implementation strategies for child and youth health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".